Is having children selfish act?

[BeepKillBeep]

But since I can’t have you feeling like you won by default [1,2,3,4,5]. Lots of people find joy in a variety of things that cause fulfill life satisfaction.

[1] Böhnke, P. (2005). First European Quality of Life Survey: Life satisfaction, happiness and sense of belonging. Office for Official Publications in the European Communities.

[2] Adams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996). Relationships of job and family involvement, family social support, and work–family conflict with job and life satisfaction. Journal of applied psychology, 81(4), 411.

[3] Daig, I., Herschbach, P., Lehmann, A., Knoll, N., & Decker, O. (2009). Gender and age differences in domain-specific life satisfaction and the impact of depressive and anxiety symptoms: a general population survey from Germany. Quality of Life Research, 18(6), 669-678.

[4] Veenhoven, R. (1996). The study of life-satisfaction.

[5] Dannerbeck, A., Casas, F., Sadurni, M., & Coenders, G. (Eds.). (2013). Quality-of-life research on children and adolescents (Vol. 23). Springer Science & Business Media.

[QuickSilver]

@Machinaforce

Those countless generations also had illogical reasons for reproducing, considering there is no logical reason to reproduce. They also likely believed in God and the afterlife, seems like we have to weave all these illusions and additional meaning just to make it worth to stick around. That seems rather defective.

It also a fallacy that because something was done in the past that we should do it now.

…And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now you tell me what you know. - G. Marx

That is to say, you’re conflating things that have nothing to do with each other and making the mistake that your argument is based on sound reason and logic. It isn’t. Try again.

[Kent_Clark]

@Machinaforce

It’s still a simple fact that to live is to suffer, to be sentient is to suffer.

I understand now. This was the semester the OP took Russian literature.

[XT]

I would say that not having kids is the selfish act, since having them means you are willing to sacrifice time, energy and treasure to bring a different self from your, um, self, to this world. To me, the OP is someone who hasn’t ever had kids so doesn’t get the difference.

[Machinaforce]

@XT

I would say that not having kids is the selfish act, since having them means you are willing to sacrifice time, energy and treasure to bring a different self from your, um, self, to this world. To me, the OP is someone who hasn’t ever had kids so doesn’t get the difference.

It would actually be selfish to have them as you are gambling with their life, you cannot know what will happen to them and you are exposing them to sufffeing by birthing them.

Death and not having children is the end and permanent solution to the problem of suffering. Isn’t it a moral duty to prevent and if not that then minimize suffering?

[Machinaforce]

@BeepKillBeep

Your op, your premise, so you first.

And again this is flawed all-or-nothing thinking. I’d ask you try again, but you’ll just repeat the same unsupported nonsense. The cycle continues around and around until one of us stops. Fortunately I have the good sense for that to be me.

It’s not all or nothing, it’s just a fact that living entails suffering as a guarantee and that pleasure isn’t a guarantee. There’s also a chance that they could be born into great suffering or have a crippling disability, it would be better to never have that happen then to risk it for a life where they might find pleasure and will find pain. Even when they are born the older they get the more they will be exposed to greater suffering, until they reach old age and go out to some illness. Quality of life goes down as you age and especially so if you contract some lifetime disease.

So far I haven’t heard any strong arguments for life being worth the gamble.

[snfaulkner]

@Warm_blood

So do you believe procreation in any circumstance is selfish? Even if it means the extinction of the human race?

I believe everything everyone does is, at some level, selfish. I am NOT saying people should or shouldn’t have children with that statement.

[Machinaforce]

Antinatalism is based on the principle that suffering of whatever kind or degree should not be caused or perpetuated, and that human existence necessarily entails suffering that we can neither escape nor justify, least of all by experiencing pleasures. Thus, the only way to end all suffering would be to cease producing beings who suffer.

And in response to the “most people argument”:

This question is rather difficult to sort out. It’s certainly possible, subjectively, for an individual to feel that “it’s good to be alive,” but that doesn’t mean that it was always good to be alive for that individual or that it will always be good to be alive for that individual. I know that it’s possible for some number of people not to have a “good day” for practically their entire lives. It’s also possible for some number of people to never have a “bad day” for practically their entire lives. But it’s pretty futile to get into calculating how many people have never had a good day or a bad day, and by this means conclude whether or not being alive is all right. The whole proposition is so hypothetical that it’s not worth giving a moment’s regard. To my mind, it’s also rather crass and unfeeling to propose that as long as a majority of people exist in such a fashion that they consider it better to exist than not to exist, it can be said that life is all right for the entirety of the human race—that the minority counts for nothing in this useless calculation. Furthermore, those in the majority at one time may find themselves in the minority at another. At the end of any given generation, it would be possible for almost everyone to occupy a place in the majority as well as the minority. Then you would be back to where you started. And where you started is where we are now and have always been, not to speculate that it is where we will always be. The pronouncement of the majority with respect to the value of live is the one that rules. Antinatalists must be insane. My children will not be one of those people who never have a good day for practically their entire lives. My children will be in the majority, if there really is a majority and not just a deluded consensus.

These are just snips from websites.

[enipla]

In the past, children where mostly extra farm hands.

That’s not the case today. And IMHO, before the earth has more people to support, we need to support the people that live here today.

It’s not selfish I don’t think, but my Wife and I never had any desire to have children. And as we married a little late (36yo) there was no question to not have kids.

[tim314]

Maybe there’s some kind of decent argument you could make that having children is selfish. (Although even if it is, it doesn’t necessarily follow that one shouldn’t do it. Good outcomes can – and often do – follow from decisions that are partially selfish.)

But an argument that boils down to “most people are probably better off dead” is not that argument.

Even the most charitable interpretation I can give to what you’re saying – something life “Life is a mix of good and bad, but you shouldn’t inflict the bad on someone regardless of if it’s more than balanced out by the good” – is scarcely better. If that’s the argument, then why shouldn’t you? Because someone who doesn’t yet exist doesn’t get a choice about whether they’re born? Can you think of an alternative that grants them that choice without them having to first be born in order to exercise it?

[tim314]

@Machinaforce

These are just snips from websites.

Is this meant to imply that you don’t agree with the arguments you’re presenting?

[Ambivalid]

OP, what keeps you going? Why do you get up everyday? Do you have any long-term goals or dreams? Why haven’t you given up on life?

[QuickSilver]

@Machinaforce

So far I haven’t heard any strong arguments for life being worth the gamble.

The chances of you even being here are ridiculously tiny. So in the lottery of life, you’re already a winner. Don’t waste your jackpot on obsessive self-indulgent nihilism.

[XT]

@Machinaforce

It would actually be selfish to have them as you are gambling with their life, you cannot know what will happen to them and you are exposing them to sufffeing by birthing them.

Death and not having children is the end and permanent solution to the problem of suffering. Isn’t it a moral duty to prevent and if not that then minimize suffering?

But, you see, you are being selfish here too. YOU are deciding that you don’t want to risk the pain or sadness for another individual because, well, it will or would potentially hurt YOU. Do you not see how that is a fundamentally selfish act?

It’s not only selfish but arrogant as well. It’s your moral duty to decide what might constitute future suffering FOR ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL WHO IS NOT YOU, and minimize it as you see fit? Seriously…think about what you are saying here.

[Shodan]

@Machinaforce

As long as some suffering exists it’s better to not expose anyone to it any further by havinrg children.

Not if the joy in life outweighs the suffering.

Once in a while, my wife and I get into an argument, and that’s unpleasant. Usually, we don’t, and I enjoy her company and her blue eyes very much. If I hadn’t married her, we would never argue, but then I wouldn’t get to see her blue eyes. So some suffering exists in my marriage. But I would be an idiot if I had decided not to marry her just so we would never argue.

@Machinaforce

It’s still a simple fact that to live is to suffer, to be sentient is to suffer.

That’s not a fact; it’s an opinion, and it’s not an opinion that is shared by any but depressives and suicides.

There are other choices in life besides suffering, and nothing.

Regards,
Shodan

[iamthewalrus_3]

@Machinaforce

Not everyone gets born into a situation in which life is worth living.

So what? The vast majority of people seem to find life worth living.

Human existence is pretty harsh, being aware of further pain and your own death, boredom, and of course excessive thinking.

That sounds like the way a clinically depressed person might describe existence. I mean, “excessive thinking” as a negative of human existence? Come on.

It’s not a greatly popular movement and one wonders if that’s what they think why not commit suicide?

One does indeed. In fact, the relative rarity of suicide makes me think that their general idea about human existence not being worth it is full of shit. Suicide is easy and readily accomplishable, yet quite rare. That says to me that most people don’t agree that their lives aren’t worth living.

But they make a strong case.

Assertion not in evidence.

[Yllaria]

@Machinaforce

. . . humans have a choice that animals don’t. The only way to truly minimize suffering is to stop reproducing. Anything else seems more like a band aid solution. Simply put, there is a logical reason to reproduce.

I’m going to point out that animals also suffer, they just don’t get caught in a loop of anticipating death as an inevitable future fact. I agree that it’s a very unpleasant loop to get stuck in, but refraining from having children will not knock anyone out of that loop.

[Machinaforce]

@Ambivalid

OP, what keeps you going? Why do you get up everyday? Do you have any long-term goals or dreams? Why haven’t you given up on life?

That’s an irrelevant point.

As I have said, the thought is that as long as suffering exists it’s our duty to prevent it. We do it already by treating illnesses, settling wars, and other solutions to the problems in society. But these are just band aids. Diseases get more resistant, new conflicts emerge, and we are just playing catch up. The suggestion is to nullify the struggle to live by not existing or birthing any more people. We already strive to reduce suffering for all, how is this any different? How can you justify suffering? At what point can the reasons for justifying suffering be used to commit other acts using the same logic.

I haven’t heard why it’s illogical to end human suffering by allowing us to go extinct. By not continue the human race you end its suffering and the cycle that we engage in day after day for what seems like no logical reason. It’s not like we HAVE to live or stay alive. We don’t HAVE to reproduce. There doesn’t seem to be a reason to do that (not a logical one). It’s on you to provide a good reason to reproduce, to continue the song and dance that we have done for centuries. Conscious beings in a universe devoid of meaning, simply existing for what seems like no purpose or logic.

All that seems to keep us going is survival instinct, but that’s not really logical is it? What logic could there be to support bringing something into existence in order for it to experience pain and suffering. The number of gruesome illnesses that exist seem like reason enough to not be here.

Try justifying sticking around for a reason that isn’t just surivival instinct.

[iamthewalrus_3]

@Machinaforce

As I have said, the thought is that as long as suffering exists it’s our duty to prevent it. We do it already by treating illnesses, settling wars, and other solutions to the problems in society.

We treat illnesses because a life without illness is better than a life with one. We try to end wars because a life lived in peace is better than one lived in war. But it doesn’t follow that a life lived with disease or war is without value.

The fact that humans experience suffering detracts from the positives of life, but it doesn’t negate them.

Your entire argument appears to hinge on the facile idea that moral good comes from reducing suffering regardless of any other consideration.

[Machinaforce]

@iamthewalrus_3

We treat illnesses because a life without illness is better than a life with one. We try to end wars because a life lived in peace is better than one lived in war. But it doesn’t follow that a life lived with disease or war is without value.

The fact that humans experience suffering detracts from the positives of life, but it doesn’t negate them.

Your entire argument appears to hinge on the facile idea that moral good comes from reducing suffering regardless of any other consideration.

My previous post also lists other points on that matter.